why does philosophy (mainly continental) so often ignore or seem uninterested towards findings in the sciences or mathematics? Is it just because they sometimes refute what was historically considered accurate?
>>547979
Science is modern superstition. It may happen to coincide with physical phenomena more often than the superstitions of our ancestors, but that doesn't make it interesting to philosophers.
Mathematics and other formal disciplines are fine but philosophers are sick of playing with symbols already, it's hard to imagine that humans can squeeze any more insight from mathematics.
>>548046
Try biology then.
>>547979
They get pissy about the fact science has superseded philosophy.
Much as a cocoon gives birth to a butterfly, philosophy gave birth to science in the 1600s, and now has no further valid contributions to make.
Philosophers are bitter that this is the case, so often they simply ignore this fact.
>>548056
I already did, but what's your point?
>>548059
Pretty much this.
>>548083
hello reddit
>>548095
Hello /pol/.
>>548064
I guess philosophy like Dennet, with relevant biological factors not being excluded.
>>548059
>science has superseded philosophy
From a purely scientific approach, tell me how one acquires happiness.
I'll be waiting.
>>548046
What the fuck are you talking about.
>>548083
>Separating Philosophy from metaphisics
>Believing that the questions of philosophy can be reduced to cats
>>548116
>From a purely scientific approach, tell me how one acquires happiness.
Tell me how you acquire it from a philosophical approach
>>548116
Dopamine etc
>>548129
>Tell me how you acquire it from a philosophical approach
By putting aside money, status, materials, disciplining yourself, being humble, and doing good unto others.
>>548140
>Dopamine
That's only temporary.
>>548151
Not if you have a constant supply.
>>548140
>>548129
>>548116
That guy is just memeing. Happiness doesn't exist; it is an illusion, a Fata-Morgana.
>>548151
Isn't all happiness temporary anyway?
>>548059
>They get pissy about the fact science has superseded philosophy.
Science is a sub-field of philosophy you coon.
>>548147
>By putting aside money, status, materials, disciplining yourself, being humble, and doing good unto others.
prove it.
>>548147
>stoicism
kek, you're about 2000 years too late to the game, lad
>>548168
Like how chemistry is a sub field of alchemy
>>548169
>>548046
>it's hard to imagine that humans can squeeze any more insight from mathematics.
but that's because you don't have any imagination.
>>548187
Science has the power of rigarous investigation, quantitative data, and statistical analysis
Philosophy has memes and quote pictures
>>548173
No, they are.
>>548203
Philosophers founded science.
>>548116
Soma tablets, bruv.
>>548216
And we thank you
You guys were total bros for that
>>548083
Here's a (You)
"Philosophy is dead"
Is there any other quote that will help you identify a redditor with more certainty, than this one?
>>547979
Can you give an example of a scientific fact that a major philosopher has ignored. I know you can always cherry pick a few clowns but anyone actually major?
>>548349
Free will.
Biology and physics have thoroughly disproved this idea, yet philosophers still seem to cling to it.
Foucault predicted this science worship in the fucking 60s. Science has replaced religion as the authority on what knowledge is correct. That isn't to say that science has merely figured out a few things but that knowledge becomes more 'true' if you can slap the word science on it. Even if knowledge in question has nothing to do with the scientific method just add the word science and it has the same aura of authority as though you invoked the name of God.
Consider Sam Harris and his 'science based morality' which is just repackaged Unitarianism. Science is no longer just about testing things and recording the results, it now has the power to decide which results are good, which are bad, much like the old priests.
And again this is a French fag describing this 50 fucking years ago!
>>548083
Hello reddit
>>548203
What is the underpinning that allows you certitude in your findings?
>>548349
Lacan's mathematical idiocy
>>548419
faith in Christ
>>548381
No they haven't. It's just been limited. The world isn't (100%) deterministic.
>>548349
Marxism has a bunch of fun on ones
>depending on if you consider economics a science, basically everything Marx ever said
>Lysenkoism
>Language and culture were created by bourgeoise to hide the workers' innate telepathy and hiveminded nature
>Genes don't exist
>>548426
The world is either deterministic or random (due to quantum effects). Neither allow for free will or choice.
If I flip a coin, and the random outcome decides whether I turn my head to the left or right, I still have no choice in the matter. Free will can't hide inside quantum fluctuations.
>>548083
>>548116
Depends from person to person but there are a lot of factors that go into it: social approval, sleeping enough, a good diet, etc.
Virtually, it can reduced to physical properties of the brain but, when push comes to shove, it's much to complex to do it (today). Dopamine, oxitocin, endorfins, etc... having these in test tubes is not the same as having them be chemical signals in a complex biological system. Emergent properties and all that.
>>548381
>Free will.
Biology and physics have thoroughly disproved this idea, yet philosophers still seem to cling to it.
Well you've chosen an excellent example to show how the scientific world is completly fucking cluless without philosophy to explain basic concepts to this. The concept of free will is wrapped up in the concept of identity.
The general arguement goes like this "your brain is an agent of these chemicals. There for you do not control your action". This implies that 'you' are not your brain and that 'you' are not part of these chemicals.
So already we have the scientific group making a philosophical stance about the nature of self. Now here is the kicker. Your understanding of self is not a scientific based on but a CHRISTIAN one. Yes mr. Fedora, the idea that 'you' are not your brain, your feelings, etc. Is rooted in the Christian idea that 'you' is an immaterial soul. The idea is so rooted it's built into the very language (all of the 'your' because thoughts are not your identity in Christian philosophy they are a possession of the immortal soul).
So without even realizing it you have axiomatically assumed Christian concepts of idnetity to be true. You have merely removed the soul from the equation.
There are multiple ideas of how identity can work. The most sensible explanation in a worldview without souls is to say that those chemicals ARE YOU. So you would have free will because those chemicals would be yourself controlling itself.
...and identifying what the part of the human is 'self' and which is merely appendages is in fact fucking philosophy.
So not only are you taking a CHRISTIAN view on identity but you are also a fucking hypocrite for taking a philosophical stance while critisizing philosophy. Not only that but you arn't even fucking using science to assert yours stance. Biology and physics cannot make statements about free will because they cannot define will or define self.
>>548422
and you are proving my point.
Lacan's work was in fucking lanaguage. That's his central work. He never fucking made any statements on math, he just used math terms to make really crappy metaphors.
>>548426
>Genes don't exist
This isn't a stance Marx took. You are thinking of Tumblr lefists which are not major figures in philosophy.
Also how would Marx even make this statement. The concept of a 'gene' didn't even fucking exist when he was writing. You seem unable to distinguish the present from the past.
>Language and culture were created by bourgeoise to hide the workers' innate telepathy and hiveminded nature
While I disagree with this it's not violating science. "why" langauge is made is not even a fucking scientific question. That's a linguistic question which is a humanity.
>Lysenkoism
Again I asked you to give me major philosophers that ignored science. You are describing a movement started by non-philosophers.
Consult the Humebot 5000, he loved his empirical evidence
>>548466
>The general arguement goes like this "your brain is an agent of these chemicals. There for you do not control your action". This implies that 'you' are not your brain and that 'you' are not part of these chemicals.
If my 'self' is also fundamentally a deterministic chemical process, then that bodes even less well for the idea of free will.
If anything, this produces an even more positivist, deterministic worldview.
>mainly continental
What are you on about? All the wildest philosophy of mathematics comes from Europe, historically.
>>548505
Who is Bill Mayer?
>>548549
You make choices. What matters what comes before the choices?
Should the will not be bound by causality?
How would that work? Really, even if you allowed for magic. Would your will be disconnected from your history?
It's like you purposely define free will as something that no one can make heads or tail of.
>>548567
>You make choices. What matters what comes before the choices?
You just baldy assert the very thing we are arguing over, and then accuse me of being factious?
>>548046
>it's hard to imagine that humans can squeeze any more insight from mathematics
I'm a math student. There are tonnes of useful mathematical developments currently happening. My graph theory professor even called this the golden era of math.
>>548549
>If my 'self' is also fundamentally a deterministic chemical process, then that bodes even less well for the idea of free will.
I'll debate this point in a moment. But first you need to realize that I've basically already proven my point. "Self" an "will" are need to be identified in order to say if there is free will which cannot be done by science. They can only gather data but the interpretations rest in philosophy.
My own concept of self is Nietzche's idea where the self is a collection of many competing wills. You can see some support for this in modern psychology which acknowledges that there are conflicting drives and seperate parts to our identity. For instance the conscious vs subconscious. Nietzche's model ends up rejecting both total free will and determinism. No will is entirly free since it's always in conflict and is sometimes subjugated but no will is not completely without it's own agency either. You can see this idea play out a lot in psycho-analysis which tries to identify what the competing parts of a person's mind are (ie the base instincts vs social conditioning, childhood influences etc.)
The general view held by a lot of atheists is that either the self must be completly free to choose anything at all times or everything is a big domino effect. This idea again has it's origins in Christianity which insisted that free will must be something where you always could have chosen any path, otherwise one is not truely guilty of their sins.
There are more options available. It's not an all or nothing, there are middle paths. There are also understanding of free will vs determinism that say the debate is just a language game, which is a new 3rd path. I believe this argument also has some strength. The defination of 'will' in free will has changed a lot through out the history of philosophy. For instance the big free will debate was in regards to the justice system, it's where we got the concept of intent as mattering.
>>548046
>no more insight from mathematics
ebic
>>548604
>cannot be done by science. They can only gather data but the interpretations rest in philosophy.
Of course scientists can interpret their data. How do you think they come to conclusions?
Thinking is not a monopoly of philosophers
>>548604
To add to this. The reason free will vs determinism is a debate where people do not accept a middle ground, one or the other again has to do with religious philosophy.
The religious view is that God can do anything he wants and if he wills it than there is no resistance. This led to a question of exactly what does God control? Some theological positions took the idea that God controls all action, argueing one could not do what God didn't intend to happen because it would mean a gap in God's power. This is where we get hard determinism in which everything is controlled by natural forces (aka God).
The other view is that God could control us but allows us to make choices on our own for one reason or another. Thus we are totally free will.
There could be no middle ground here because God's power is either absolute in it's control or not there at all.
>>548622
Any abstract interpretation of data gets into philosophy. Science actually has it's own specialized brand of philosophy to help with this. For instance to decide if something is ethical. Another example would be debate to which exstent things discovered represent absolutes and what is just a human labeling. For instance, to what extent to things have fixed identities and to what extent are the identities just our lanaguge? And than finally asking what we should use the new discoveries for (a hot button issue would be cloning or ai).
Science and philosophy are extremely related. Up until a few hundred years ago they were actually something that you learned at the same time. They are not really in conflict, they are complimentary.
>>548582
I'm not the guy you were arguing with. I was making my own point.
Free will and choices should be treated like mental states, functions of the brain, with all that it entails.
To conceptualize them as things that must by definition be apart from causality just invites confusion.
"I made a decision." "I was under duress, I felt I had no choice." These statements are easy to understand. They convoy meaning with clarity. So why must we invite metaphysics to the party?
>>548046
>it's hard to imagine that humans can squeeze any more insight from mathematics
Now THIS is projecting
>>548116
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/05/happiness-equation_n_5652518.html
>>548277
There is nothing wrong with Reddit.
>>548453
Scientism is a buzzword invented by postmodern hacks.
>>548466
>So you would have free will because those chemicals would be yourself controlling itself.
Except that's a fucking stupid argument and revives the old superstitions of animism.
>>548567
If you follow that logic, you have to allow for non-human animals being able to choose. And from that follows veganism.
>>548116
you still waiting?
>>549076
Yes.
>>549045
animism is the belief that all things have consciousness. Identifying the self as being a multitude of different drives with a material basis doesn't lead to that.
You can interpret consciousness as being an immigrant property of these several wills. You can take a Buddhist approach and say consciousness is just localized awareness. You can take a super strict material approach and deny consciousness.
The trouble with the super approach a lot of atheists have is they seem to be going on a path that does not allow for a self to exist. Yet at the same time they don't want to reach that. You don't want to have a the self exist in the form of anything non-material (neither 'soul' nor idealism). Ok far enough so what's the self? Well according to the atheists the brain and all it's chemicals is not the self it's the thing that controls the self. Who is the 'you' that owns the 'your brain' 'your feelings' 'your chemicals' So if the self doesn't even exist in the material basis, and you insist on there being nothing but strict materilism you cannot have a self at all. The ultimate conclusion is that there is no such thing as an identity.
In a purely materialistic philosophy the only way to have an identity is to say the material basis for feelings and emotions ARE identical with the self.
There are other options though such as idealism which allows for a transcendental self to exist attached to but separate from the material. So over all I believe the approach that has strict materilism but won't identify the self with the material is a bad model. It has no explanatory power, it can't even acknowledge the existence of an identity. There are better models.
>>549034
Just keep clutching that rosary to your chest and whispering that secular hail mary and I'm sure you'll find your salvation from uncertainty and doubt.
>>549203
“Perhaps the greatest strike against philosophical pessimism is that its only theme is human suffering. This is the last item on the list of our species’ obsessions and detracts from everything that matters to us, such as the Good, the Beautiful, and a Sparking Clean Toilet Bowl. For the pessimist, everything considered in isolation from human suffering or any cognition that does not have as its motive the origins, nature, and elimination of human suffering is at base recreational, whether it takes the form of conceptual probing or physical action in the world—for example, delving into game theory or traveling in outer space, respectively. And by “human suffering,” the pessimist is not thinking of particular sufferings and their relief, but of suffering itself. Remedies may be discovered for certain diseases and sociopolitical barbarities may be amended. But those are only stopgaps. Human suffering will remain insoluble as long as human beings exist. The one truly effective solution for suffering is that spoken of in Zapffe’s “Last Messiah.” It may not be a welcome solution for a stopgap world, but it would forever put an end to suffering, should we ever care to do so. The pessimist’s credo, or one of them, is that nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real.”
― Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race
>>549231
Nice try, postmodern hack.
>>548602
That's really interesting, can you give me some examples?
>>548491
You mean that he misused mathematical methods and symbology to mystify people that don't know enough math to see that bullshit for what it is
>>549305
We discovered a previously unknown number between 4 and 5. It's a whole number and is also the only number not divisible by 1, which is why the numbers scanners couldn't detect it until now. It's going to revolutionize the world, to start with everyone else need new keyboards to hold the new number. The addition of a new number into the number line also means that everyone's pay check will be larger too since $100 is now worth $101.
I can't tell you much more because a lot of this under wraps and we are still doing a lot research but the new number should be available for release this Christmas season (Christmas is now in November since the calendars need to be changed to hold 13 months)
>>549333
>>547979
Math is literally all made up.
The only reason 1 is 1 is because you say it is, and the prime condition for math to work at all is that we all agree that that's true.
>>549333
Nice, can't wait!
>>549333
>>549333
>>549333
wew lad
>>549333
>>548083
Wow le funny meme picture from the oatmeal
GET OUT NOW
>>549333
>>548046
Just reading this guy's post does more to convince you he's a retard than any comment I could write
>>549511
nice anime pic you fucking loser
>>547979
Why do philosophy majors think what they do holds any real signifcance at all? Name one real effect philosophers have ever had on the world as a whole.
You can't.
Wars may be fought over ideology, but it's mathmeticians and scientists that allow it to be more than people throwing sticks at each other.
>>549533
Looked at more closely, it is not the alphas who make the rules but the philosophers. The alphas merely put them into practice, as the Han dynasty did with Confucius' philosophy, Alexander with Aristotle's, the Roman emperors with the Stoics' and the Epicureans', Lenin and Mao with Marx's, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco with Nietzsche's, and even the democratic pseudo-leaders, to an extent, with the pseudo-philosophers' liberal claptrap. It is only subhumans who think that philosophy is superfluous and causes nothing, but as the fascists' and communists' millions of victims discovered (a little too late for their liking), not only is philosophy (which is to say thought) not superfluous, but it makes the world go round.
>>549034
It is, and pseudoscientific hacks I would add. However, this doesn't mean that there aren't epistemological limits to science.
>>547979
Schopenhauer teaches that you can't know for certain that science/ math is going to work in the future. It is a priori knowledge. There is no way to prove it will always work. Only guesswork. I'm not discrediting the necessity of science though.
>>549533
>Name one real effect philosophers have ever had on the world as a whole.
>You can't.
>Wars may be fought over ideology
Nigga you for real or just pretending to be retarded?
>>548566
American television personality. He does HBO's version of the daily show.
>>549533
>implying that having an impact on the world matters
You seem to be making a pretty big assumption. Why should we do things that benefit society? Why cure cancer, or go to space? Can you give an objective answer as to why doing something that "benefits society" is "good"?
>>547979
There is very interesting philosophy being done these days that interacts with other fields. Look at modern philosophy of mathematics, as relates to new axioms, for example: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/large-cardinals-determinacy/
Hell the people who do philosophy related to such subjects are also the people who discover the mathematical results (look up Hugh Woodin or Tony Martin).
>>549644
>philosophy of mathematics
any introductory texts you'd recommend?
>>548046
>it's hard to imagine that humans can squeeze any more insight from mathematics.
>things I don't know don't exist
>this is what /his/ actually believes
>>549614
>a priori knowledge
>no way to know if it will be true in the future
Wut.
>>549670
Is that an Aria?
>>549296
What do you mean, 'nice try'? What do you think I was trying to do?
'Buzzword' is a buzzword that busy bees use when they don't have the foreground knowledge to hold a real conversation.
>>547979
>why does philosophy (mainly continental) so often ignore or seem uninterested towards findings in the sciences or mathematics?
Because science cannot explain or study the unique experience of being human.
It's really interested how someone like Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins, thinks it is axiomatic that a person who is a scientist, also is a secular, modern liberal, even though these two things are completely independent of each other.
>>549677
Maybe
>>549633
The fedora's will just axiomatically assume the Christian ethics they picked up from their culture are true but rebrand them in a secular understanding, removing God and there by destroying the entire justification they had. Now the ethics are assumed to be true purely out of habit.
>>549654
I highly recommend Alexander George's Philosophies of Mathematics to start with. It's a great historical overview of the important things that happened in philosophy of math from the past century, up to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.
The next thing you would need to learn is about the Incompleteness Theorems, and other basic mathematical results in logic. And you really do need to see the math to appreciate the philosophy that comes out of it. A book that assumes no literally mathematical background, and goes through these results really well and very thoroughly is The Incompleteness Phenomenon: A New Course in Mathematical Logic by Goldstern and Judah. Also, if you want a good grounding in set theory (for large cardinals or determinacy), Jech and Hrbacek's Introduction to Set Theory is a good start.
>>549709
Thanks anon.
>>549709
If a monster has an infinite number of hit points and get hit with a sword that deals infinite damage what happens?
>>549708
Exactly. If God is dead, what the actual fuck are we supposed to do. People try to pass it off as a trite point but its the fundamental question whether you're a scientist or a philosopher.
>>549673
>Synthetic because it's predicate is not contained in the subject, a priori because it is independent of experience.
You can't continually know if something will hold true in the future. You can only guess. Until we invent a time machine that's all we have.
>>549708
I'm not sure why people bring this shit up. There have been stabs made at fundamentally non-Christian ethical systems. Max Stirner springs to mind.
>>549740
>stabs
>>549724
Depends on how you're defining "infinite" in this context. I think the most natural way would be to treat these as infinite cardinalities, in which case specify that the monster has kappa hit points for some cardinal kappa, and the sword deals lambda damage for some (possibly distinct) cardinal lambda. Then use the closest analogue to subtraction we have for infinite cardinals: If lambda >= kappa, the monster's hit points go to 0, if lambda < kappa there exists a unique cardinal gamma such that kappa = lambda + gamma, and so the monster's hit points drop to gamma.
Also LaTeX on /his/ when?
>>549708
The Christians just picked up humanistic morals and attributed them to a non-existent person they later decided was god.
If Christians really wanted God's morals, they wouldn't have decided to ignore the OT because reasons.
>>549757
>because reasons
>dismissing the reasons why they don't follow the old law is a trite thing
kek
>>549734
Dude. No.
Synthetic a priori knowledge is apodictic, meaning it is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN. The examples Kant gives of synthetic a priori knowledge are geometry, mathematics, and the pure physical sciences like theoretical physics.
I have no idea where you got this idea that synthetic a priori knowledge is time-conditional. This is suggested literally nowhere. You invented it in your stupid head.
>>549740
>>549730
There are ethics system without God. However we are still suffering the after affects of God dying. In the past society was relatively stable philosophical with certainty and the general gist of things coming from God. Now that's gone and it has created a philosophical black hole. That's why the world seems so full of uncertainty. As Nietzsche put God's chair is now empty. The world is still looking for how to fill this seat. It's at the point where we need philosophy more than ever before.
The positivist fedroas don't have a clue about this though and haven't even realized that appealing to old cultural norms about ethics rooted in Christianity are vapor-ethics. The Christians cannot understand that their aeon is over.
This is why movements like post-modernism happened. With the absolute certainty of the world gone EVERYTHING is being deconstructed and exposed as nothing but perception. Even the gold standard of certainty, mathematics, got hit and is now shown to not be a platonic form but just another human abstraction.
Philosophers tried to fill the huge gap of certainty with existentialism in various forms but this has only succeeded on an individualistic level. The collective western world still does not have a new meta-narrative to fill the gap. The rapid nihilism, disillusionment with reality, conscious acceptance of illusions (waifuism, hyper-reality, etc), general decay of culture, obsession with escapism and dreamy nostalgia for the distant past are all symptoms of an aliment that has yet to be cured. This also explains the idleness and apathy of the world as the Western world continues to be eaten away at forces we could easily swat away: there is no rallying cry because there is nothing to rally about anymore. Baudrillard tells us not only is God dead but meaning is also dead.
We are in the greatest philosophical crisis the world has ever known.
>>548046
This motherfucker has gone off the rails
I sincerely hope this is bait. Otherwise you are the quintessential example of the sanctimonious, deluded, faggot pseudo intellectual
PS your degree is literally dogshit
>>549800
Couldn't have said it better
>>549757
As far as justifying things religion in a philosophical paradigm having a God in your corner is incredibly useful.
You can go divine command theory, you can go with teleology/natural law. As long as the ethics systems isn't self-contradicting you can justify fucking ANYTHING with a deity. Resolving a few weird chapters is a relatively minor obstacle.
An ethics system in a secular model is much harder to pull off. You can't just relay on old assumptions about 'good' 'happiness' or 'do unto others'. Nor can you merely assert something is nice because you like. Everything needs to be done from scratch. Nietzsche did it. Sterner did. The Stoics did it. But models like Unitarianism and humanism fail, they are just take old christian ethics about the common good and happiness as axiomatically true but no longer have the god to justify it.
>>549752
Well the sword is made of magic metal the channels the world soul and the monster is a paradox aeon. So what fucking happens man? Also what happens if the sword rolls a crit for 2x damage?
>>549831
>Well the sword is made of magic metal the channels the world soul and the monster is a paradox aeon. So what fucking happens man? Also what happens if the sword rolls a crit for 2x damage?
Your first sentence sounds fun, you should GM games. And if the sword gets 2x damage, then since cardinal multiplication is well defined, letting lambda be the base damage of the sword, the sword would do 2 * lambda damage.
>>549800
Is this not the end point of thought though which al societies move towards?
Wouldnt anything that could fill the gap just be a spook of some variety?
>>548426
>Marx ignored economics.
This is absurd. Have you ever compared Marx to Smith? Marx just has a little more faith in people, and a little more distrust for the wealthy.
>>548046
Curiously this is considered one of the great advancements of philosophy tof the 2oth century. Then they wonder why no one gives a shit about philosophy today.
>>549880
I don't think society can survive like this. Some individuals can but the collectives society is in total nihilism. That's why it doesn't fight back anymore. It could eventually become consumed entirely and burn.
There are no easy answers to how to solve the crisis of the death of God and with it the death of meaning. Maybe it needs a new spook maybe we can do it without them. Following the twilight of post-modernism the state of philosophy moved towards trying to find a new banner, to no avail.
The progressive left is probably the strongest force in trying to create a new banner but that too is vapor-ethics. It's still rooted in the old spooks of Rousseau's tabula rasa and Revolutionary ideas about equality. It's just another symptom of the sickness.
You see glimmers of attempts to find the new banner in pathetic movements like the neo-reactionary, Harris's rebranded Unitarianism, and other pop philosophy. New "movements" pop up at a much faster rate than before. Humanity is like the wandering Jews, abounded by their God and traveling all over the world looking for a home, the promised land being only a vague promise in the future. We don't know what it is but we know we need to get there.
As I said the individual may be able to settle in and find meaning in his own ego but the Geist, the collective, needs a banner and we have not found that. The sickness is only going to get worst as time goes on. As Baudrillard points out the more advanced the sickness becomes the harder it will for us to even realize we are sick and thus the less we will look for a cure. I don't believe he is correct but theorizes the most advanced stage is an all consuming nihilism in which we cannot even discuss the 'real world' or 'meaning' anymore. The concepts will not be expressionable in language anymore, like how the proles in 1984 cannot even express bondage. As I said I don't think that will happen.
What a horrible nightmare.
>>549992
You write like a pretentious teenage girl. It doesn´t add anything to your post. Stop being a fag and be critical.
>>547979
this onion is wrong
>>549203
"The self" is a useful concept/fiction used in meta-cognition to organize input, memory and thought. Things attributed to "the self" are the result of many processes, some inherently related and others unrelated except by how they are subjectively perceived. It does not exist in a "real" sense, but it is "real" on the level of human experience and the fact that people believe it to exist does affect behavior in real, measurable ways.
>>549992
If society worked up until now because someone said "because God, now shut up" eventually someone will figure out another capitalized term they can use to say "because Blank, now shut up." If it's an essential component of civilized life, one society will preserve it and survive while other societies either fail or copy the successful one. If it isn't an essential component of civilized life, then no big deal it got lost and we're just in a weird transition period.
Really, you just seem to like being dramatic. It seems like a fun time and makes for compelling reading it probably doesn't make for the most level-headed predictions.
>>549992
>>549992
But thats the issue though it seems like an inevitable decline and that the currents of hope you talk of are just another form of escapism.
When God and Communism died what could actually fill the gap at all.
>>550237
>societies live and die by their religion
>>550254
I didn't say that. I actually very specifically said "if they do, no big deal, and if they don't. that's also not a big deal." It was in response to the assumption that God was the absolutely necessary underpinning of meaning and the loss of the concept will necessarily cause disaster or collapse.
>>550190
I agree with you here. So the definition we give to self is one of practicality. The fedora position which wants things only to exist in the material world yet at the same time say the chemicals and the brain cannot count as the self, is essentially saying there can't be a concept of self.
It's a position with weak explanatory power because it can't even describe an individual. Calling the self the chemicals or saying the self exists in idealistic form actually gives us something to work with.
>>550116
I personally do not believe that the death of God marks an end for philosophy, it just marks a point of stagnation until a new paradigm appears.
>>550212
>>550247
Whether you think it's depressing or not is subjective (I don't really) but if you read any 21st philosophy you are going to get hit with the exact thing I described. A lot of it is communicated in rather complex ways with a lot self-referencing terms or in a very indirect way. My goal was just to restate in a concise way. If you think it's edgy that's really more of your interpretation, there's a lot of different perspectives on it in philosophy. Sarte thought it was fucking awesome because it means extreme freedom, Stirner doesn't give a shit because the collective is just a spook to him. There isn't a single 'correct' interpretation.
>>550254
Society ran for hundreds of years with religion playing second bass to Enlightenment ideals. From the 1700s up until the late 1800s religion had already been dethroned. God sort of died with Napeleon. A secular ruler put the Pope, the voice of God on earth, into jail for crimes against humanity using Enlightenment philosophy as the basis. This symbolically showed the world had already accepted that such philosophy was a higher form of authority than God.
The fact that society ran so smoothly in those years shows religion is not necessary, it's just one of many of forms that the big flag everyone gathers around can be.
>>550315
>The fact that society ran so smoothly in those years shows religion is not necessary, it's just one of many of forms that the big flag everyone gathers around can be.
>liberals do not need to have faith in science
existentialism is to the literary person what (logical) positivism is to the scientific person. it is the pinnacle of the fantasy of the in-dividual from the humanist occidental.
both trash but both shows the stupidity of the rationalism from the enlightenment.
>>548404
>>Consider Sam Harris and his 'science based morality' which is just repackaged Unitarianism
I though he was a buddhist ?
>>548381
>Biology and physics have thoroughly disproved this idea, yet philosophers still seem to cling to it.
if you have faith in physics, you believe that there is a the renormalization group floating around, also known as GOD, always renormalizing bare masses and other abstract parameters of elementary particles.
>science is truth, r-r-right guize ?
>>550237
God saying something is different than a person saying it if you buy into their philosophy. Whether something is true doesn't matter in whether a society can function (think of Plato's noble lie).
So in the pre-modern world "truth" and "God" are interchangeable words. Whatever God says is true because he is the platonic form of truth. The society believes in and they have a foundation to stand on. The gist of everything comes from God.
Of course that was the past. It doesn't work anymore. The logical conclusion of God being the absolute truth is those most attuned to him rule the country (either a priesthood or some king that has a special relationship with him).
Besides the modernists redefined truth to be something observable and figured out through empiricism. So God is no longer the truth. Post-modernism uses perspectivism. Whichever you like it doesn't mean something is true just because God said it.
> If it isn't an essential component of civilized life, then no big deal it got lost and we're just in a weird transition period.
I sort of agree. The scarey thing is we have had several failed experiments at transitioning into a new understanding. Enlightment science reverence, communism, fascism, salvation through capitalism, all flops at creating the big thing that unites us all.
The SJW and Dark Enlightenment are other attempts that will most likely fail. Essentially the current state of philosophy is to keep throwing out new models until something sticks. It will be the creation of a new philosophy that ultimately kick-starts us off, either that are Bauldrillard is right and we are going to be imprisoned by our own nihilism in a comfy cell with virtual reality, escapism through media and video games, and other soft things making us never have to face the real world. My guess is Baudrillard is wrong but I just want to throw that out there as one of the ideas that's floated about
>>550315
>>550375
>>547979
It doesn't reject science it rejects Scientism.
Philosophers don't philosophize about science or they would be scientists; they usually focus their attention to what ultimately can't be described in any meaningful sense by science.
Empiricism in the realms of philosophy is an extremely limited approach despite how effective science is at describing natural phenomena.
>>550391
That is a really controversial considering that there are still whole schools dedicated on the basis of pure Empiricism. I don´t know wy philosophers make this distinction when "scientiscm" is consider a valid way of viewing the world as much as any other system.
>>550404
>That is a really controversial considering that there are still whole schools dedicated on the basis of pure Empiricism
Yeah it was called positivism and it was abounded by everyone including it's creators. Only fedoras that are completly clueless about philosophy still hold the position. It's like people that still literally believe in communism, only those that don't actually understand it believe it.
Can you empirically justify only using empiricism? Nope. This is part of the smack down Quin gave to the movement with his Two Treaties. So pure empiricism is self-refuting. Wittgenstein also BTFO with is Philosophical investigation by showing that us that even fucking basic communication cannot be understood empirically. A pure Empiricist cannot even speak.
>>550388
You can't discuss philosophy without shitposting. Philosophy by necessity precludes serious discussion.
>>550416
Nah senpai, I´m talking people who say argue that if something is not falsifiable is not worth discussing.
Not every scientist as some 19th century view about science.
>>550391
>Philosophers don't philosophize about science or they would be scientists
Or philosophers of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
>>550416
>Laplace was a fan of positivism and thought the scientific method must replace metaphysics
truly ahead of his time
>>550377
>God saying something is different than a person saying it if you buy into their philosophy.
Not really. All you have to do is change a person into a legend, which we do all the time with historical figures and thinkers anyway. Just think of how often people invoke names as entire responses to ideas they disagree with, as though the names point to an inarguable truth rather than just another argument with specific context that may or may not be convincing.
> never have to face the real world
If everyone is engaged with the virtual reality, that's about equivalent to the "real world" just a different one than the imagined history from our heads. Agriculture surpluses provided a way to worry less about short-term fluctuations in food availability than hunter-gatherers had to, in exchange for more labor. One limit traded for another, or in other words a "comfy cell." But nobody would say early agriculturalists didn't live in the "real world." Life changes, people make a big deal about it (especially when there's a chance to write a book about it and become famous) but it all works out in the end.
>>550390
>hasn't actually learned anything about physics
>>550465
Pop-sci (or high level shitposting) isnt physics m8.
>>547979
Didn't Lacan write about math?
>>549034
I was gonna post that big triangle showing all the levels of "arguement" because your response doesn't deserve real text input.
If some1 can post that triangle for me in this thread, that would be nice so I have it on file for future reference and use..
>>548381
All science presumes determinism, ergo just stop being stupid, please:- its like totally enough of this already.
We live in an era where "Because the science..." has displaced, "because the understanding..."
Cult of science... can only argue, its better than false religion: because the science can't make truth claims, so it must be rightest.
[sarcasm voice:] At least the feeble minded so easily self-identify themselves in this day and age...
also see my beautiful related pic, I made that (tearing to mine eyes in contemplation of beauty..)
>>550572
>I made that
M8. I've seen that same image many times before and we can all see you got it off tumblr.
>>550596
You are a clever one
>>550620
Thank you.
>>550572
I will go onto say, that's is so funny how science is its own cesspool of circular reasoning... because we know that 99% of science is ALREADY made toilet paper by some newer science, we feel better about the latest 1% of science, since it hasn't been downgraded to toilet paper yet... and the more constipated Scientists get, the more awesome that 1% must be, and if we get lucky: maybe they'll just shit themselves, and then we all have to be even more excited over their pride for their huge steaming accomplishment.
There is a pyschology mechanism that accounts for this, its to do with ponsy schemes after you've already invested too much to stop now.
Look, I'm not saying science is totally useless, its very similar to food and cooking; why should I make my chef a demi-God, plus he can also discover some new recipes for things no-one has ever tasted yet: but why would I believe he has any special relationship to the meaning of ANYTHING, just cause I depend on the food he makes to live well, doesn't make him my keeper.
False religion of the 21st century, and the dolts who fell for it, inb4: bestfalsereligion sorrynotsorry.
>>550596
yeah, its from my personal tumblr page...
but this is irrelevant, that claim is not crucial, but thanks for showing your intolerance of impertinent minutia.
>>550639
Did they told you you weren't school smart at school?
Or are just 15.
>>548140
>how do you acquire happiness
>by having more of the happy chemical lmao XD science FTW!
>implying bursts of diamond while you're eating or jerking off constitute true inner fulfillment
>scifags are this out of touch with reality
You're autistic
>science vs religion
Literally babby's first thematic concept
>>550659
Maybe they did, I'm not sure I understand your question exactly, maybe be more descriptive so I can discern the context, I suspect its disparaging, but its not exactly clear.
Well, I'm 29, so I guess I can't just be 15...
If you want more than that, please try to couch your remarks in longer phrasing that more clearly indicates the purpose of your ideas.
How old are you by the way? Although I would hazard by the lack of sound form, or sense of reasonableness, that just as your shoe size, it matters little in exchanging with your sparse sense of mental integrity.
>>550693
Hahahaha, yea m8 whatever you say.
>>550681
They do you retard. You only think they don't because you aren't aware of how ingrained your reward system is in daily life. Everything from eating nice food to exercise can release it. What stops happiness is clinical depression, caused by a chemical imbalance.
Remember what separates us from the computers we type on is random chance and several billion years of evolution.
>>550698
Cool, if you haven't noticed I really enjoy "whatever I say", so I'll continue to stick with it.
PS: Have fun with the rest of your borderline personality driven life.
>>550639
What the fuck is this shit? You tripping balls mate?
>>550647
I made no attack on tumblr and didn't imply one.
>It's from my own personal tumblr
Sure and pigs fly through the air on wings.
>>550708
>muh chemical imbalances
Do you realize how autismal it is to ask someone like you how to live a good life and you answer "just gotta regulate your chemicals maaaan"? As if the interplay of these chemicals don't produce a qualitative dimension to experience that is the real issue at hand?
>>550717
If I said it was peered reviewed science, would it work for you then?
LOL.
Or still having trouble navigating to the end of a sentence with your tacit excuse of being confined to some kindof public schooling system?
If this thread doesn't improve this weak sauce mediocrity, I'ma give up already...
Oh right... actually you've convinced me, I see my errors now that I've gone back and tried to work out what that shit even was, I do need to work on my meth habit, I see the truth so clearly now, thank you for this invaluable reality check anon, may Science Bless us all in the light of these revelations that you've helped me find, now I can continue to serve the collective overmind, for the glory of our Science. ["plays portal song".]
>>550416
>Can you empirically justify only using empiricism? Nope.
No need to justify anything. "Ultimate Truth" is an incoherent and useless concept.
Empiricism concerns itself with matching up models with our perceived view of the world via experiments and observations - it's completely irrelevant whether this is theoretically sound or not, what matters is the actual practical outcomes.
>>550737
lmao keep trying
You'll get there one day!
>>550721
re-read everything carefully. and try again, because now your in your own private discussion populated by strawmen on strings attached to your fingers.
>>550737
>If I said it was peered reviewed science, would it work for you then?
But it would never have got through the peer review process.
>>550746
I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is.
>>550743
Can scifags ever respond to an argument without parroting their textbooks like it answers anything? He's literally pointing you to the rationalistic foundation of the scientific method, without which in and of itself empirical data can't justify itself and is therefore meaningless you fucking git
>>550744
please tell me about the 'where' of that "there"...
any information would be greatly appreciated, as my need is obviously great, please offer me anything in support of its pursuit... I can tell you've been there... please help a brotha out... have you no compassion, just please gimme something to go on at least. I await your response with the anticipation even.
>>550753
[...] it's not working out for you is it [...]
>>550729
Except that is the issue in the end. Our brains are "merely" chemical computers. Stupidly advanced and utterly unique ones, but they use chemical compounds to process and express data none-the-less. The issue on hand is that we're still far from the days where we can simply force ourselves to be happy by making subconscious actions conscious (brain please run dopamine.exe), but have to find out exactly what experiences cause the release of certain chemicals.
I mean at the end of the day if you really just want something to make you happy, get an energetic hobby to do with friends. Skydiving. Swordfighting. Flying. Etc. Socialization + Adrenaline and Dopamine is a surefire way to lead to a happy life if you aren't suffering from depression.
Also, who the fuck cares if it's autismal? It's the truth. At the end of it all the supposed depth of experience is an illusion. If you could control the chemical releases in your brain, there would be no difference from your POV between living a supposed deep and meaningful life and sitting in a chair ordering your brain to pump your body full of a cocktail of happy juice in non-lethal quantities. The only thing that separates the two is that we sadly aren't there yet and are not true masters over our own biology, and probably won't be for some time considering how slowly neuroscience moves forward. We have to do it the old fashioned way, but just because we need actions to achieve this same happiness- hanging out with friends playing a fun game or having and being good at a job- the end result is the same. The how doesn't matter- it's the result that matters.
>>550737
Seriously, what the fuck is even your point here? I haven't the faintest clue as to what point you're arguing for with this gibberish.
>>550752
>He's literally pointing you to the rationalistic foundation of the scientific method,
And I'm saying that is irrelevant.
>without which in and of itself empirical data can't justify itself and is therefore meaningless you fucking git
No, whether empiricism is philosophically valid or not has absolutely no bearing on the outcomes of the experiments.
>>550752
We all understand the metaphysical concept he is rambling on about.
Religious people pull this line all of the time.
Strangely they never seem to get round to metaphysically justifying the "making stuff up without evidence-ism" school of thought. And apparently feel an attack on science is enough, in itself, to justify believing in any old nonsense someone dreamed up.
>>550764
Don't forget you can get desensitised to dopamine, see heroin abuse.
>>550748
>>550751
too much work to educate you cretins. If your not willing to help yourselves, flounder as dolts, you can't expect me to jump through hoops just to convince you of your mistakes, when you hide them with your feeble intellectual dishonesty.
^ you see what I did there, I offered a full response, whereas if I answer in the same style you guys do, I would of just settled on replying with:
lol, just no.
Because I give you opportunity to access my reasoning, and you guard yours because it belongs in a gutter, and if you laid it out to bear, it would look like the obvious garbage that it is.
>>550764
>how do I become better at singing this part, anon? Its giving me some trouble
>WELL IF YIU JUST OSCILLATE YOUR VOCAL CHORDS AT 440HZ FOR 3 SECONDS THEN RAISE THEM 50 HZ FOR ANOTHER 2 SECONDS....
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN IM ON THE SPECTRUM HEH WE ARE BUT STARDUST
Do you not understand that out of all the levels phenomena occur on, from atomic to molecular all the way up to the qualitative, harping about chemicals only betrays how abstracted your reality has become? It's like I asked you how to start a car and you told me I have to ignite a mixture of air and fuel and ... Yeah no shit that's how it happens you clown, so how the fuck do I do it?
Science can't tell you shit about how to live a real life and you're here telling me that because we know what dopamine is, it can? A method of empirical observation can arrive at a normative value system? Lmao go back to reddit
>>550768
Way to miss the point about what's being argued. I swear some of you guys must be actual fucking robots
>>550769
Brain chemistry is a metaphysical concept?
You can't even use philosophical terms correctly and you're here having opinions about religion and spirituality. Nah
>>550768
what is an outcome?
implying "outcome" belongs to science foremost, or is represented by scientific description.
BOLD implicit claims,
BUT:
I saw what you did there.
The jig is up, as they say.
Let us start with those who take realism to be prior to reason. To fix ideas consider the pluralist who accepts realism about the natural numbers but not about arbitrary subsets of natural numbers and then, on this basis, concludes that theoretical reasons can be offered in the case of new axioms in number theory but not in the case of analysis or set theory. When pressed on the source of this asymmetrical stance concerning realism in the two domains the pluralist usually responds by resorting to the intuition that the natural numbers are “clear” while the notion of an arbitrary subset of natural numbers is “inherently vague”. To this the non-pluralist might respond that the notion of clarity is not clear. Intuitions of clarity, like intuitions of self-evidence, are notoriously vague and subjective and hence a weak point upon which to rest one's case.
Let us now turn to those who take reason to be prior to realism. People in this category take objectivity to be the hallmark of realism and they come to their conclusions concerning realism about a given domain only after one has a good understanding of what kind of theoretical reasons have traction in that domain. A pluralist who thinks that theoretical justification in mathematics must ultimately trace back to axioms which are self-evident will be unmoved by the above extrinsic case. Likewise for a pluralist who thinks that theoretical justification in mathematics must ultimately trace back to axioms that are extrinsically justified. The case we have given is clearly an extrinsic one. The issue, then, comes down to the legitimacy of extrinsic justifications.
>>550773
You what matey?
I was just the person who mild queried why you were pretending to have created an image you got from tumblr.
I don't even understand why you have decided to have an argument with me about it or start accusing me of making 'strawmen' or what you are now talking about and why you think it is relevant.
>>550810
We are certainly not in a position to resolve this debate here. But it will be helpful to draw a parallel with the debate between the instrumentalist and non-instrumentalist in physics. An extreme form of instrumentalism was advanced by the neo-Kantian Hans Vaihinger in his book The Philosophy of As If (1911). According to this view, the “hard data” of physics consists in the data of our immediate sense impressions. Upon this basis we are free to construct—in common sense and in physics—a “reality”, but the result is not genuine knowledge—rather, it is a useful fiction for moving around in everyday life and making predictions in physics. In a similar fashion, the extreme pluralist takes the “hard data” to consist of the theorems that have actually been established and regards everything else as a useful fiction.
>>550813
In the physical case the non-instrumentalist sees theoretical reason at play at a much higher-level, far beyond the data. For example, in the time of Copernicus, when the Ptolemaic and Copernican theory were observationally indistinguishable, theoretical reasons could still be given for the Copernican theory over the Ptolemaic theory.
>>550789
Except it can. Energetic lifestyle. That's all there really is to it- the problem is that depression is one hell of a fucking pitfall that we don't really know how to clinically drag somebody out of. Science can tell us how to get there- the issue is that they didn't tell us about the nails littered on the highway.
>>550799
I didn't mention brain chemistry.
>>550743
>Empiricism concerns itself with matching up models with our perceived view of the world via experiments and observations
this is what the rationalist believes....
stop polluting empiricism with your speculations
>>550416
>Yeah it was called positivism and it was abounded by everyone including it's creators.
empiricism is not linked to any rationalism
what many cucks itt don't get that only science can give a reliable description of reality because science works on casuality
>>550817
>science invented living an active, balanced life
lol you're fucking baiting right? You know even cognitive behavior therapy was heavily influenced by stoic philosophy, which was pantheistic right? Or that current mindfulness craze arose out of western contact with Buddhism, right? Do you really actually think science can do anything more than just confirm/invalidate the exhortations of religion, spirituality, wisdom writings etc.? Lol
>>550789
>>how do I become better at singing this part, anon? Its giving me some trouble
>>WELL IF YIU JUST OSCILLATE YOUR VOCAL CHORDS AT 440HZ FOR 3 SECONDS THEN RAISE THEM 50 HZ FOR ANOTHER 2 SECONDS....
That IS exactly what a good singer should do, what the fuck are you implying here?
A particular melody or a note does have an objective frequency of osculation, and if you miss it you'll sing out of tune.
Should we instead tell them "yeah sing whatever - tonality, key or notes doesn't matter"?
>harping about chemicals only betrays how abstracted your reality has become?
That seems to be your problem.
I see nothing reductive or abstracted about it - it gives you a precise and targeted way of actually measuring your progress.
Talk to any body builder or anyone who decided to become fit, many of them will tell you objective measurements of things like their weight over time, fat ratio, how long they could run in time and/or distance, how much they could deaf lift, etc were invaluable tools for making progress.
It's only by looking at the chemicals (or w/e thing you're measuring) you can differentiate between 'fleeting happiness' (say taking drugs) and 'meaningful happiness' (seeing your new-born child for the first time) - they will have different brain patterns, memory imprints and utilize different feedback mechanisms - in particular by looking at the after effects when the instantaneous moment of happiness is over.
>>550391
>Philosophers don't philosophize about science or they would be scientists
lel, nice meme
scientists do not reply to what they call philosophical questions because they claim that it is not their tasks.
and then you ask them why we should continue to finance their little experiment, and their sole answer is that ''it helps people to have easier lives'' or you have no reply at all...
>>550796
No it's you who are missing the point.
>>550838
you do understand that scientific models are not linked to being good at chanting ?
>>550805
>what is an outcome?
The actual end of the experiment or observation.
>implying "outcome" belongs to science foremost, or is represented by scientific description.
You can only know an outcome (as it relates to reality) by observing it.
>>550796
>must be actual fucking robots
Technically speaking, life is a naturally occurring robot resulting from self perpetuating chemical reactions.
So no anon, we are the robots.
>>550838
>I need chemicals to confirm what kind of happiness I feel when I hold my child for the firs time
Holy lol. I got 99 problems but autism ain't one
>>550839
I hardly think it is philosophers, specifically that scientists are asking for money from.
It may be frustrating to you but the general public cares a lot more about science than they do about the meaning of meaning.
Every science has its method, and it's the approach of the plebeian to disregard those fields that do not use the methods of natural sciences.
Do people shit on history because it's worthless posturing and superseded by archaeological datings? There is simply no way to confirm a huge chunk of historical data because the only way to reach it is through written narratives. It could be a bunch of lies.
But no, reasonable people don't disregard history and treat it like they should everything else - it provides the most likely account, and while dissent is indeed possible, for practical terms we should follow the historian's consensus.
Philosophy in its own way has advanced tremendously through the centuries and previous understandings are no longer accepted, or radically revised. if you think that metaphysics is worthless, for instance, you are a fucking idiot. It is a foundational field and forms the core of almost any sociopolitical ideology.
But the plebeian will pretend it's worthless and simply go with metaphysical packages that are offered to him today.
>>550850
Chemicals are everything anon.
Although, a drug replicating the emotions in the brain when seeing your child for the first time would be fucking a-mazing.
>>550857
You're literally not getting what im saying. I gave you two fucking examples and spelled out why reductionism is retarded when consciousness enters the mix and you keep parroting the same points like a broken record of a guy who stutters. Fffuuuuuuuck
>>550845
>you do understand that scientific models are not linked to being good at chanting ?
But they are.
Sing at 251 Hz - bad singer.
Sing at 261 Hz - good singer.
(If they were supposed to sing a middle C for example).
And when it comes to technique it's all science - breathing techniques, vocal exercises and training your ears are all developed from looking at our actually biology - how do we produce and receive sound waves?
>>550859
I counter with us not knowing what consciousness actually is anon.
>>550850
Of course you need those chemicals, without you wouldn't feel anything.
>>550853
>Philosophy in its own way has advanced tremendously through the centuries
All the way from I think therefore I am to and nothing else is provable to I think therefore I am and nothing else is provable.
>>550860
YEAH BRO AND RED'S ELECTROMAGNETIC FREQUENCY IS JUST [WHATEVER IT IS] FUCKIN BOOM BRO SCIENCE HAS SOLVED ART LMAFO
>>550867
Please educate yourself next time you wanna talk trash. I think, therefore I am was formulated for the first time in the 17th century you cretin
>>550865
>we don't know what consciousness is
>but reductive descriptions of the interplay of chemicals that produce it will solve all the world's mental problems Lmao
That's not a counter you dip, thats an argument for my side
>>550805
Science can be reduced into one word:
it a test...
what it is testing for...
science CANT ever know.
WHY?
well because, the test would need to test its own rigor somehow; which is impossible without presuming a determinism;- so it does presume a determinism, and every idiot jumps on the bandwagon, forgetting the bandwagon is nowhere close to being sound, or established with reason.
This speculation on determinism means science is incapable of determining the operations of quantum of mechanics, because they don't match with its deterministic structure the 'test' depends on to read 'verification (sic)'. Which is why science can't ever explain quantum mechanics, and why it can only offer statistical descriptions, and speculative modeling that is really just a question of language-politics for the terms being used, which have no hope of extending the reach of human understanding because of the self-imposed limitations put onto the thinking imported from the faulty scientific method.
Mediocre minds can't fathom the essential nature of the prima-fabric for long enough to forge a better tool for the sublimation of human intelligence.
-----------
Let me go again:
Science is an unfinished work in progress by the accounts of its own promoters, and you f***wits are totally sold on it before its produced a solid answer ON ANYTHING, because we must all have blind faith in a scientific process (that is fundamentally un-compelling), because its easier to think the truth is already out there for me to lean on in times of trouble, than having to work out how to actually discover a proper understanding. Oh, yeah, also cause the mind is not capable of knowing the truth of science, only computers filled with data are intelligent enough to see the truth of Science... Problem science can't even actually be criticized, lurking in the shadow of vague self-definition... because you can't destroy what you can't ever get your hands on defining...
>>550878
>Please educate yourself next time you wanna talk trash. I think, therefore I am was formulated for the first time in the 17th century you cretin
Well it took them long enough to work out literally the only thing they can prove.
2016 and no scientist can propose various experiments in order to
-be sure that you have been born
-be sure that you will die
-be sure that other people are humans like you
but sure they claim to have experiments to study black holes and other neutron stars....
TOP LEL SCIENCE.
>mfw it's 2016 and scientists STILL can't grasp double-aspect theory
I mean come on guys!
>mfw people think metaphysics is worthless and at the same time assume traditional ontological categories in their relation to the world
Top kek m8. Go back to reading Aristotle you stupid cunts, maybe you'll realize some things.
>>550894
Based Schope blew the fuck out of scientism 150 years ago
>>550870
>girl hitting in a can
>Pieta by Michelangelo
"There are both are maaan, u can't say one is objectively better than the other!!!!!!!!"
How does any of this help you guys get laid? this thread is concentrated autism.
>>548046
(You)
>>550878
In my defense it's 5am and I haven't slept in thirty hours.
>>550882
I'd also add for everything we know about natural phenomena we still don't know what nature is, what matter is, what energy is, in its absolute essence. It's like a guy metaphysically confined to a TV studio set and thinking the cardboard trees and shit are all there is and he's figured it all out because he can tell you everything about the structure, composition etc. Of the cardboard when in fact it is literally impossible for him to contextualize his reality as a studio set in a larger world.
We're monkeys in lab coats trying to understand a closed system. We can tell you a lot ABOUT this system. But we can't tell you what it IS, nevermijd spinning a whole new fucking quasi religion out of Darwin and dawkins worship
>>550853
History, as opposed to any other branch in the world, is completely useless. It matters not what historians do, I mean, after all, a bunch of revisionists already convinced half the world that a certain "holocaust" happened... at that point, it's pointless to hope history can actually be accurate or true.
>>550812
I cannot answer your query, because its based on an unfounded accusation.
As proof of my creatorship, I would reference my arguments in this thread, which are of the same quality, and consistent with my style of brilliance.
Also: im not gonna explain the strawman metaphor, your too dumb if you haven't followed the exchange well enough to understand what has taken place in that course of exchange.
Also, I think your probably just being intellectually dishonest, because you don't answer direct questions that would bring resolution to any of the contentions you pretend to raise, you just to conflate the issue into more sordid tangents, wherein you project further errors onto me without founding any of your claims upon statements or questions.
I will attempt to you ignore you as best I can, as you obviously a kindof trollish time sink, even if its slightly unintentional.
>>550893
>2016 and no scientist can propose various experiments in order to
>-be sure that you have been born
>-be sure that you will die
>-be sure that other people are humans like you
Calm down Jaden. All you are doing is showing how stupid philosophy is, not science.
>>550882
>This speculation on determinism means science is incapable of determining the operations of quantum of mechanics, because they don't match with its deterministic structure the 'test' depends on to read 'verification (sic)'. Which is why science can't ever explain quantum mechanics, and why it can only offer statistical descriptions
What the fuck are you on about?
It's not speculation, it's actual experiments which have given rise to these statistical models.
Scientists have actually observed the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in practice.
>Science is an unfinished work in progress by the accounts of its own promoters, and you f***wits are totally sold on it before its produced a solid answer ON ANYTHING
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.
>having to work out how to actually discover a proper understanding.
Also known as science.
>>550920
The evidence for the holocaust is immense and it hasn't even been refuted by people who took part in it.
Move along to /pol/, buddy.
>>550921
>>550812
grammar edit:
Also, I think your probably just being intellectually dishonest, because you don't ***ask*** direct questions that would bring resolution to any of the contentions you pretend to raise, you just to conflate the issue into more sordid tangents, wherein you project further errors onto me without founding any of your claims upon statements or questions.
>>550816
I love how I instantly recognized that this was from the SEP page linked above. Why are you copy-pasting this here anon?
>>550935
The evidence for mass imprisonment of Jews is immense.
>>550921
You don't need to explain strawmen to me, my slow witted chum.
Pointing out you are a liar is not misrepresenting your position in order to attack it, it is calling you a liar, which you are.
>>550935
>the evidence for the holocaust is immense
>it hasn't been refuted
just lol
i'm not even going to bother arguing with you, it's pointless at this point. i think it was hitler who pointed out that jews argue from the position of already have won, and snake their way out of any argument or debate, and if refuted successfully he will do the same thing. well, it doesn't matter.
>>550917
>Of the cardboard when in fact it is literally impossible for him to contextualize his reality as a studio set in a larger world.
Because there's no reason to - and there's nothing to be gained from attempting it.
>>548164
>If I can't explain it then it's not exist.
Scientist everyone.
>>550945
Pointless at *what* point? What incredible historical findings have nazi revisionists brought to the holocaust debate?
I even went to /pol/ to see what this shit all about, it's a bunch of fake jpegs and fringe websites that have a clear agenda against jewish people. I have seen nothing that convinces a reasonable person of the absurd position that a mass genocide of Jews was going on. The numbers are debatable, sure, and the traditional reports may be exaggarated, but to deny it happened at all is the realm of lunatics.
>>550953
sure you have, you've seen "nothing" and everything you've seen is absolutely right, and since this is an anonymous image board you'll just fuck off and fight the same battle tomorrow saying the exact same shit.
Well, not today. Today I stop replying to your kind right now.
>>550953
Also, we just had a huge thread on /his/ recently about primary sources of the holocaust. You may take a look at it, if you actually read anything other than your /pol/ flavored "historians".
>IT'S POINTLESS TO ARGUE WITH YOU
>IT'S SO OBVIOUS THAT I'M RIGHT
>THIS IS LITERALLY HOW JEWS OPERATE
Embarassing.
>>550949
Maybe, maybe not, but scifags are just as guilty of assuming shit about what's outside of this system as religious people so watch it with the high horse
Scientists are still ignoring the Aristotelian foundations of their assumptions, and as long as they keep doing that it will continue to be an embarrassment and fellow philosophy historians will laugh at it.
>>550967
>but scifags are just as guilty of assuming shit about what's outside of this system as religious people so watch it with the high horse
No, they aren't.
Scientists answer to what is 'outside this system' is either "dunno, working on it" or "what do you even mean by 'outside'?"
>>550962
It was that thread where a guy kept refusing to see the sources being posted right? Can I have a link to the books posted there? I want to have them handy for the next time holocaust denial shows up.
>>550974
Scifags, not scientists. People who think evolution is a metaphysics and worship pop sci icons
>>550975
https://desustorage.org/his/thread/509405/
Here's the thread
>>550999
lel mods were easily shilling on this one
>>550987
In other words you are just smearing ordinary people who are happy enough with the evidence presented to them by scientists to except evolution as a pretty solid fact or are interested enough in science to be interested in prominent science communicators, because I mean being interested in what Stephen Hawking, for example, has to say without being a physicist is literally the same as "worshipping" him.
Nice smear tactics.
>>550934
Maybe if you could navigate to the end of a sentence, and work out what I was on about, you might stop being obtuse and going onto make idle denials and table thumping.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand (isn't this fun, its your turn again).
let me substitute words in what you've said, and we can all see how useless your sensibilities for reasoning are:
You might say scientists have actually observed a principle, but that's very unscientific. You owe money to the falsification jar (remember, every time you treat falsification like verification, you gotta pay up). Practically speaking, thats why I win, and never can, I HAVE ALSO given you big boy arguments and reasoning for this already, but you don't seem capable of asking me direct questions about that, just giving me obtuse "fuck are you on about?" sentiments.
Predictive principles are by nature inductive and therefore speculative (forever&always). that's a deduction. Also all prediction is based on a fundamental presumption about reality, which is actually doesn't correspond to the truth; which is why we can't explain the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (explain and model is not the same).
By the way, incase you didn't notice, I was talking about statistical models in a disparaging way, not because they don't hold up, because they are unreliable in a crucial way:
You can't distinguish mathematical models to be independently operative outside the hypothesis, so its a tautology that has effectively duped you into taking the futility in the Scientific grasp, as the highest authority.
>>551004
Evolution as a metaphysics is not the same thing as accepting the theory of evolution you clown. It's an extension of evolution to the metaphysical domain; making assertions of the true nature of reality and the non-existence of a higher power based on the phenomenon of evolution alone, which is absolutely absurd. Hence, evolution as metaphysics. I couldn't have made it clearer but you're still flailing at straw men.
You don't know what's being argued.
>>551027
Why would anyone have to prove the non-existence of a higher power?
>>551031
Because by definition it would be metaphysical and outside this closed system we call the universe. Goddamn. It's not being metaphysically restricted to never going outside your front door and having to prove the nonexistence of something ridiculous like polka dotted alligators across the street. It's having to prove the non-existence of the guy who built your fucking house in the first place, though first you have to prove your house isn't eternally cyclical, or a Brute Fact, or whatever, shit that evolution can't tell you
>>551037
Thats just a bad metaphor. I know someone built my house. Someone building a house doesn't suddenly mean all the ordinary non-religious people in the world have to prove anything.
You can't possibly be saying it is logical that if people build houses god exists.
>>551046
lol you're retarded dude. The point is the house is the closed system, an ordered system that it is reasinae to assume was designed, although we cannot know for sure. So if for all intents and purposes the outside world doesn't exist, "God doesn't exist" is not any more a given than "God does exist".
>>551016
>You might say scientists have actually observed a principle, but that's very unscientific.
>just giving me obtuse "fuck are you on about?" sentiments.
Because you're being completely incoherent.
>Predictive principles are by nature inductive and therefore speculative (forever&always).
No scientist disputes this.
>that's a deduction.
The flip side is that deduction without observation is completely useless for gaining knowledge, i.e you have to start from an observed premise about reality to actually get anywhere.
>because they are unreliable in a crucial way:
Quantum mechanical models are extremely reliable and give very precise and consistent results.
>You can't distinguish mathematical models to be independently operative outside the hypothesis
I can only repeat my questions: What *are* you on about?
Mathematical models are supposed to explain the hypothesis, they are supposed to be dependent - and that's where the role of experiments come in, when they showed the model to be wrong or inaccurate you have to refine it constantly.
>>551055
I see. I'm a history fag who never gets involved in the 'god' debates and only joined this thread because I was scrolling the front page and saw you trash talking ordinary people just for being interested in science, or scientists or accepting scientific facts and calling it worship.
I do happen to be non-religious, although I was unaware that is what you were harping on about with your trash talk.
I don't know why people even bother to have debates with people like you because you are clearly incredibly tiresome. There's no sensible concept of god I am aware of for me even to believe in let alone having people like you trash talking and harassing me with shit like "god exists is the default option, you worship scientists, prove everything, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, the Universe is just like a house etc etc".
Anyways off to discuss history a bit more, jeez.
>>550440
There's no guarantee that it will "all work out in the end".
>>551069
this guy literally writes like a cuck
bet he also believes in the holohoax
